#character construction

A few things, I think.

1) The first is that I find basing a character arc solely upon "the lie a character believes" to be, ultimately, counterproductive. While it can work, especially in a standalone, I don't think it has much leg room for something bigger (a duology, a series, a long running tv show, etc). This is because the character just learning they were wrong, I think, is often times too clean cut. For the most part, the lies (or fears) that people believe about themselves (for example, a character fears their mental health struggles makes them a burden) is at least partially true. Maybe that character is someone who needs to be carried by their friends -- but isn't a part of love choosing to take on other people's burdens? It's often times much more realistic and much more interesting if the lie is at least partially true. How does the character handle that, and what do they do then? It provides 2 (if not 3) arcs for the price of one, and can be helpful in providing future pathways.

2) Layering. You want to give your characters multiple Big flaws. I'll use my main character from @alvoskia as a short example. She has four main flaws: her tendency for comparison and subsequent resentment; her temper; her penchant for hyper-independence (depending on circumstance), as well as being lying and manipulative. This means even if only one flaw is resolved per book (and even then you can solve parts of them and stretch it out for likely two), I got like 8 books of room and am writing a 6 book series so I can condense and piece things together.

3) Behaviour matters more than beliefs. While the two often go hand-in-hand, with beliefs motivating behaviour, you can ultimately have two characters with the same belief (ie. "I have to be Good to make up for the fact that I'm me") but wildly different behaviour. One character could decide to be good is to put others first always but also resent it and unexpectedly lash out sometimes; another one could put others first and continually devalue themselves to the point they're very easily manipulated and very scared. Same belief, different behaviour. A character's belief can remain and often will, even as they work on changing their behaviour.

warning: heavy topics and traumas addressed Oh my goodness!! I'm so frustrated that there's not enough fanfics about Rosalie and Emmett!! Like, Come on, folks!! Do you all realize how much love, trust and patience it must have taken for them to even begin to bond like a real couple? How much pain and trauma did they have to overcome to build a strong and lasting love? This couple is full of hurt, comfort and sweet moments involving their love story! Rosalie went through pure hell as a human and Emmett was a human who always provided for and cared about his family. The two have a kind of sad way of hiding their true feelings and thoughts to show the world a more playful façade when it comes to Emmett, and an indifferent and cold façade when it comes to Rose. Their love story has so much depth and is so beautiful sad, and it's awful how s.meyer just didn't do either of them justice in the books.

Rosalie was cruelly abused by her fiancé and his friends and left in the dark alley for dead if Carlisle hadn't saved her. And every time s.meyer writes about her, it's as if she's still the daddy's pretty, frivolous little girl. Like, there's so many wrong things with her descriptions of the character and her character's backstory that I won't even begin to analyze it because I won't be able to stop pointing out the massive holes in her character build!

Anyway! Then there's Emmett, the gang's joker and airhead, but is he really? Another poorly made character build. Emmett acts as a clown for the Cullens, a life he accepted because he knew he couldn't look back after he'd been turned. However, according to the Twilight Guide, he visited his family shortly after to help them out financially for the last time, as he was the provider of the house and took care for his parents. Then Emmett is turned into a vampire and bonded by what is known as a "vampire soulmate", but Rosalie has her own traumas to overcome, and with a guy she chose but doesn't really even know him, so like, you're saying that nonsense of the Cullens mentioning to Bella that "Emmett and Rosalie have an active sex life, they're always getting married and yadda yadda yadda" was that easy and simple?

Like, literally s.meyer missed a great opportunity to give depth and credibility to his own characters, if there they had explained that before "this frivolous and clueless fact was brought up in the saga" that there were actually steps taken before that, such as a medical consultation, psychological treatment, physical and emotional support. And then, of course, yes, after "overcoming this first trauma, they were able to work on their intimate life". Because nobody jumps from A to Z without having to go step by step, man! And seriously, trauma like this is never overcome that quickly either - sometimes emotional relapses happen, along with triggers and often it has nothing to do with the current partner, sometimes it's all about little things in life that can cause triggers even more if it's not properly treated. So you can't convince me that Rosalie was cured of all her physical and emotional pain after being turned into a vampire. If that were true, she wouldn't crave vengeance, and she wouldn't want a baby and a human life after being turned. She would be a different person as a vampire; none of her human attachments, sentiments, or dreams would affect her as a vampire. So, certainly, the premise of being mentally frozen only works until the author decides so, and "minor things" like trauma and abuse have been conventionally put aside. This includes other characters with the same trouble, including humans, werewolves and vampires, such as Esme, Alice, Bella, and even Leah. Everyone suffered in some way and on some level, but their traumas were quickly handled and forgotten as the plot needed. The only one to be mentioned at least a little better, but still conventional for the plot, was Bella in New Moon. However, as I said in my Twilight Analysis, the other things she went through during the Saga were toned down and never fully addressed.

Oh, and now I should mention that Edward also has a medical degree like Carlisle? And that he has the advantage of listening to people's thoughts and yet when he saw Rosalie, he kind of preferred to run away to Denali, if I'm not mistaken, because somehow either Carlisle or Esme said their intentions of turning Rose to be Edward's mate and she just went along with that idea believing that Edward would be with her someday... Like, man, the girl is 17 years old and was abused, left for dead, then transformed for personal reasons by a third part in all this messed up plot, to then chase a vampire who didn't want anything with her...? Like, the absurdity of this narrative is colossal, I can't even! Seriously!

So, yeah, I can't take anything seriously about the way s.meyer presents Rosalie and Emmett since it always looks too personal, as if she doesn't really like the character, and honestly, she also lacks a better character construction.

And, perhaps, even a lack of empathy and a little bit of research into the brutal past she attributed to the character. Like, why make a character the victim of such horrendous abuse, be saved by Carlisle so that in time she would fill the space of companion of the boring Ed boy. And if I'm not mistaken, one of the reasons she was also changed was that she was also very beautiful, even there, dying in that alley. Like, is this real? Is it really happening? What a horrible fate befell Rosalie and Emmett, who undoubtedly deserved much better than that!

if you're a writer, interested in writing, or anything in between you've probably heard this piece of writing advice:

"Make your readers care about your characters."

I, personally, hate this phrase -- or, better yet, I hate the wording of the phrase. Honestly, it used to drive me up the wall (in retrospect, I probably took it a little too literally but there ya go) HOW can you make readers do anything? It's so stupid. What the hell are you even on about? Shut up ughhhhhh.

But, like I said, I hate the wording, not really the message. When I changed the wording of it, I finally understood exactly what I was being asked to do and could easily articulate an answer.

"Why would readers like your characters?" OR, if you're writing unlikable lil rascals, "Why would readers find your characters interesting?"

In my experience, it's way easier to understand -- and answer -- these questions then the one above. AND it's easier to think about these characters in an expansive way; you can think of your own history! What are some characters you've loved? What made you love them? Made them interesting to you?

I like these questions better.

Thank you for the question, Risri! ☺️ I’ve been pretty thorough with respect to his backstory, but there are still some murky bits: when did he start his collegiate career (or did he?); what drove him to research saronite; what was he doing during the Cataclysm; how in the hell did he end up with an arms smuggling network on Drænor‽ Those messy years between Grizzly Hills and his induction into , that’s what I have to play with. I’ve started to dip my toes tepidly into these waters, touching on (or smacking) them during rare in-game RP sessions; Wellson’s past — specifically that time period — is coming for him Soon™, i.e.: the next few months. This said, I don’t know how things will shake out with respect to story development. There could be some great moments here, and some not-so-great moments … but I’m going to give it a shot to see where we end up. (I should prolly get back to work now!)

( @risrielthron )

This is just a little guide for anyone who’s interested, written by an English major, using INTP for demonstrative purposes because, well, I’m an INTP.

I’d like to start off with a warning that it’s very easy, when crafting your character based off a certain MBTI type, to fall into all the little stereotypes. Treat your character as if they are living and breathing, learning and growing, so that they’re round, not flat.

One of the easiest ways to fall into stereotypes, and the first issue I’ll address, is the common mistake of writing as though their dominant function is their only function. I see this everywhere, MBTI or otherwise. Taking the INTP (my type), we’re often treated as though Ti is absolutely everything about us, and that you’ll see Fe in us about as often as the sky falls. Your character has four functions total: address and craft them all.

The inferior function is often ignored altogether, which, in the case of INTP, leads to the belief that we’re all soulless robots. Not so. Because we have Fe as an inferior function, it does indeed exist within us, try as some might to suppress it, and it causes us to experience pure and childlike emotions. However, because we feel and others see our Fe contrasting with our dominant Ti, it’s usually swept under the rug.

As to the crafting of the functions in general, you have to look to your character, their environment, how they were raised, and how they’ve attempted to better themselves as an individual, if they have. I think (could definitely be wrong) that it was Jung who said that an MBTI was an area on a map, not a specific destination. Each person within each type is entirely unique, and, to be completely honest, crafting a carbon copy type would probably be boring. (You could do so purposely for satire, comedy, tragedy, etc., but as a writer, there must be a purpose in everything you pen down.) Looking at myself, I’m an INTP female, meaning that social expectations, whether we like it or not, have influenced my growth as a person, which led to a period in my life (ages 10-12) when I was extremely awkward while developing my Fe. These are the little details about your character that readers crave; they bring your character to life.

Sometimes, we’ll fall more in love with a plot, sometimes with a character. This happens when we write as well, leading to something I touched on earlier, the development of round or flat characters. Round characters develop and grow in their story, and flat characters do not, so that stories containing flat characters are centered more on the plot. Think of the protagonist from a Bildungsroman novel such as The Chosen contrasted against the characters of a Greek epic like the Iliad. In terms of MBTI, a flat character wouldn’t develop and expand their functions, while a round character would, learning and growing. Flat characters are used by the plot; round characters use the plot. 

So that’s a few tips on using MBTI for character construction. If there’s anything you’d like to add, either reblog or drop me an ask. I don’t bite :)

A colleague of mine asked me to provide notes in regards to drawing characters. These are quick thoughts on Line of Action, Silhouette, and Character Construction.